Bible Contradictions

[mwtech]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

[edform]

This second example is one in which it is blindingly obvious that there has been a copyists error at some point in the transmission of the text.

The fact that there are transcription errors in the bible is an issue when I speak with people like my sister, who's entire denomination believes that the King James Bible is the only English version acceptable to use because the saints who translated were inspired by God just like the original authors.

No translation of Scripture is completely reliable, both because translators make errors and because most translators have strong doctrinal biases which become woven into their work - universally hopeless and incorrect handling of the first verses of the Gospel Of John is perhaps the most obvious example. The KJV is better than many, but distinctly ill-done in lots of places - doctrinal bias is a common cause in the KJV, but lack of systematic knowledge of Hebrew and lack of reference material on idiom and other language constructs in those days didn't help. Scholars have added greatly to our knowledge of the Semitic languages since then and translation quality has improved greatly. If we could only weed out doctrinal bias and translate the Bible like any other text - but hey!

There is also a lot of evidence to show that the Masoretic Hebrew Text, which was formerly regarded as the place to start translating the OT, has received more than a little doctrinal massaging at the hands of the copyists and needs to be supplemented with evidence from other sources - something which modern versions have benefited from.

But all of these reasons for smokey quality in our translated versions can be discerned and unpicked with nothing more than a little attention to detail and a little background research. I've been at this for 50 years now and I know of no supportable contradictions in Scripture, although the critics advance hundreds. Nor am I daft enough to regard any translated version, especially the KJV, as the last word.

The effect of such self-explaining contradictions on the overall value of Scripture is zero. Anyone who turned away from Scripture as a source of truth on the basis of something as trivial as this would hardly be acting sensibly.

Ed Form

Not all of the contradictions are self explanatory. Most have a secular explanation of "human error," but that doesn't support the case that the bible is divine in nature.

Actually, the vast majority of the supposed contradictions have an explanation of lack of knowledge on the part of those who put them forward and are not contradictions at all. There are a number that need careful study to resolve, but I have not found one yet that is unresolvable.

I provided a few more examples in my original reply that I can find no logical explanation for (I, of course, mean an explanation that you don't have to twist the words around and make outside assumptions to come to). And I've found about 15 more that I could not find a reasonable explanation for.

I'll be happy to take a look at any, or all of them, but you'll have to list them for me. You began the thread without examples, perhaps looking for some general purpose apologetic? It doesn't work like that: it has to be a case by case study.

The fact that I found these contradictions is not the sole reason I turned away from my religion. It is much more sensible when paired with the fact that I have never seen any evidence supporting there being a God. The only reason I know it as a concept is because I have been told by other humans that he exists.

If you set out to find him in a pristine, immaculate text from his own mouth, obviously perfect and devoid of errors, you will get nowhere.

So the fact that the Bible has so many of what I see to be contradictory statements that can only be explained in a convoluted way if it all, make me think that a super-intelligent, divine being was not, in fact, responsible.

If you sit down and work through the logic of that idea, you will find that it is unsound. What if the divine being, as part of his purpose, deliberately allows his word to become adulterated by human mistakes and human biases so that, at the end of the period he has allotted to his purpose, a humanist trend will have swept faith all but out of existence? The majority of people don't want to have a rule-setting potentate messing with their 'freedoms', so a film of easily removed difficulty over his word is all they need to dismiss it. Those inclined to faith, usually because they admire the beauty of character of God as reflected in Jesus of Nazareth, are disposed to look into these cavils and work them out. Don't take that as my explanation for the existence of problems in our translations, just weigh it in your mind: it's a complete alternative explanation for what you have observed so you cannot say your conclusion is proved and there is no God.

The absence of any answer to any prayer I have ever prayed, or the answer to any prayer of any number of religious people I know that wasn't the likely outcome to begin with furthers my doubt.

The same kind of alternative reason as I postulated above is available for such a course of events. On the basis of what I read in Scripture I do not think that God's purpose and what we want are in any kind of alignment.

The convenient fact that none of God's miracles ever left a shred of evidence furthers my doubt.

That's just not true. it is an ubiquitous stance on the part of most scholars, but it's simply nonsense.

The fact that there is no evidence at all for many of the events recorded in the bible furthers my doubt.

There is no evidence for many past events in the secular realm, but those who jump from that to the idea: 'therefore they did not happen' get their backsides burnt so frequently it's outrageously funny. It was, for example, a massively popular idea among the 19th Century 'Higher Critics' that Nebuchadnezzar the King was a Bible myth who never existed and their ideas gained a lot of ground among general skeptics and other hangers on. Sadly for them, Dr Robert Koldewey would insist on digging holes in the Levant and unearthing bricks with the old boys name on them - to date we have in excess of 15 million of these damn-and-blasted little bits of baked clay signed with Nebo's name. I believe the expression is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Why would we have physical evidence for things that occurred thousands of years ago? The simple, un-glamorous way they are recorded in Scripture, and the way they so often reflect unfavorably on the people who recorded them, is good evidence for their veracity.

So, once I opened my eyes to even the smallest amount of logical reasoning, "God exists because the Bible says so" was no longer sufficient evidence for me.

It would not be sufficient evidence for me either, unless it was supported by other threads of evidence.

Ed Form

[dianaiad]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

What do you say to the Christian who, when confronted with biblical contridictions, says 'yeah, so?"

The bible was not, after all, written by God. It was written by men who were attempting to explain God's teachings through their own culture, learning and filters.

Scripture was NEVER supposed to be a science text, or a primary source history text.

So, what do you say to me?

I have no problems at all acknowledging that the bible has contradictions; how could it not? It was written by men, who are imperfect. The idea is to get the teachings of God as they apply to us, from the teachings written that applied to the folks at the time each book was written.

In other words, you can't get me to change my mind and 'not believe' because bats are not, after all, birds, and because hares chew something...but not their cuds.

My response to you is...yeah, and so?

What is your next move?

[Inigo Montoya]

It would not be sufficient evidence for me either, unless it was supported by other threads of evidence.

Ed Form

Welcome to the forum, Ed.

I'm not personally too interested in the time and energy it takes to reconcile perceived contradictions in the Bible. It wouldn't matter to me if the texts were perfectly coherent and unambiguous; for me a text will never be enough to settle such a massive claim. I'm often surprised that it IS enough, and for so many people.

Which brings me to your comment I quoted here. I'd hear you expand on these other threads of evidence if it pleased you to share them.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 62 by dianaiad]

Mostly, that's the right idea to have - it makes the most sense. However, it could be argued (and is by some [many?]) that it IS the word of god to be taken literally and/or it should be devoid of errors/contradictions if it is indeed god inspired, rather or not that's logical or makes any sense.
Not that I would argue these either way at this time, simply adding to the conversation about the bible and how it's accepted.
After all, once we open Pandora's Box with 'this passage might not be right/accurate' we open the whole book to any doubt, 'what if's', 'yeah but's', etc.
At some point, a believer needs to draw a line in the sand and say 'no more', do they not?
I don't disagree with your points entirely - just FYI

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 62 by dianaiad]

Mostly, that's the right idea to have - it makes the most sense. However, it could be argued (and is by some [many?]) that it IS the word of god to be taken literally and/or it should be devoid of errors/contradictions if it is indeed god inspired, rather or not that's logical or makes any sense.
Not that I would argue these either way at this time, simply adding to the conversation about the bible and how it's accepted.
After all, once we open Pandora's Box with 'this passage might not be right/accurate' we open the whole book to any doubt, 'what if's', 'yeah but's', etc.
At some point, a believer needs to draw a line in the sand and say 'no more', do they not?
I don't disagree with your points entirely - just FYI

If I might chime in here. That line is where it effects how we should then live. The fact that bats are not avian does not matter, what matters is that they are winged animals and we are not to eat them. If one were to say that they do not ruminate and have hooves, it could be argued that they are not beasts of the field. DIYD The fact that hares do not ruminate does not matter, what matters is that they appear to ruminate, but we are not to eat them. These descriptions are designed to establish practical standards of living, not to establish genus and species. By the way are dinosaurs reptiles or birds, and why should we believe the theory of evolution, if the proponents can't get that right?

[bluethread]

And now we add your tortured apologetic to that offered by bluethread. I wonder when we'll see the one about neither Heli nor Jacob being Josephs father?
Cool

Oh I think you need to do better than that or you will simply look like an 'I won't accept it, no matter what the argument' kind of debater.

Show us how what I wrote is in error, or explain how it is tortured. The arguments are extremely simple and the conclusions perfectly sound. Others may have made a pigs ear of this matter but that does not entitle you to dismiss sound logic with a wave - unless that's the best you can do.

Ed Form

Your argument is weak because it just creates other insurmountable logical contradictions. Ignoring the fact that if we accept that we somehow have genealogies of Mary and Joseph it must be explained just how it's possible that Marys family took 44 generations to get back to David while Josephs family were apparently so long-lived that they only needed 28 generations....

You're left with the problem that Marys line states that Salathiel was the son of Neri, but Josephs line says his son was Jechonias. So, unless Jechonias and Neri were the homosexual parents of Salathiel (he and his son Zorobabel are on both lists) - this conflict cannot be resolved without simply admitting that Marys line to David was broken - which christians of course will not do since it blows the whole prophesy mojo.

That's the inherent problem with trying to explain things away. You just get caught creating more conflicts.

I don't see why I and edform have to agree. I can be wrong on some things. He can be wrong on some things. We both can be wrong on some things. That does not mean that the Scriptures are wrong.

That said,I will use Hebrew names, because I foresee objections regarding specifics. I would say that the difference in the number of generations is due to the fact that Miryam's genealogy is not complete. It is stated by Mattityahu in a manner that gives it rabbinic significance, not absolute accuracy. This comparative style is not uncommon for Mattityahu. His use of the word "fulfill" is often misunderstood as specific to the context of the passage he is quoting. That is not what how he uses the term. He uses it to make rabbinic comparisons.

Now, regarding the difference in the names listed, you have made a serious error. The Salathiel and Zorobabel in the two genealogies are not the same people. If you will notice, Mary is descended from David's son Natan, while Yoseph is descended from David's son Shlomo. This is understandable because the Hebrew was written without vowels, the genealogies are written in greek and many names were common. For example , in our day, my son has the exact same name as my dead brother. So, any relationship between the genealogy of Miryam and Yoseph, after David, is merely coincidental.

[McCulloch]

[row]How many men did Joab count for David?[col color=#deefde]2 Samuel 24:9 And Joab gave the number of the registration of the people to the king; and there were in Israel [b]eight hundred thousand[/b] valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were [b]five hundred thousand[/b] men.[col color=#deefde]1 Chronicles 21:5 Joab gave the number of the census of all the people to David. And all Israel were [b]1,100,000[/b] men who drew the sword; and Judah was [b]470,000[/b] men who drew the sword.[row]How many horsemen did David capture from Hadadezer?[col color=#deefde]2 Samuel 8:3-4 Then David defeated Hadadezer, the son of Rehob king of Zobah, as he went to restore his rule at the River. David captured from him [b]1,700 horsemen[/b] and 20,000 foot soldiers; and David hamstrung the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots.[col color=#deefde]1 Chronicles 18:3-4 David also defeated Hadadezer king of Zobah as far as Hamath, as he went to establish his rule to the Euphrates River. David took from him 1,000 chariots and [b]7,000 horsemen[/b] and 20,000 foot soldiers, and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots.[row]How many stalls of horses did Solomon have?[col color=#deefde]1 Kings 4:26 Solomon had [b]40,000[/b] stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.[col color=#deefde]2 Chronicles 9:25 Now Solomon had [b]4,000[/b] stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen, and he stationed them in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem.[row]What is the name of Joseph's father? [col color=#deefde]Matthew 1:16 [b]Jacob [/b]was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.[col color=#deefde]Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of [b]Eli[/b],[row]Did the fig tree wither immediately?[col color=#deefde]Matthew 21:19 Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He *said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.� And[b] at once [/b]the fig tree withered.[col color=#deefde]Mark 11:12-14, 20 On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry. Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!� And His disciples were listening. [...] [b]As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up.[/b][row]Did Paul's traveling companions also fall to the ground?[col color=#deefde]Acts 26:14 And when[b] we had all fallen to the ground[/b], I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’[col color=#deefde]Acts 9:7 [b]The men who traveled with him stood[/b] speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

[1213]

Please provide an example, any example, of what you'd consider a true contradiction to be.

I think these are contradictory statements:
1. I have never had anything that can be called car.
2. I have had thing that could have been called car.

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 66 by bluethread]

Again, none of this helps you to resolve the conflicts and contradictions. If we accept the latest excuse, we just see others spring up. One genealogy - again, there for no other purpose than to try and prove that Jesus was of the line of David - has Jechonias in it. The OT makes it clear that Jechonias line was severed - so none of his descendants can make any claim to David - and that includes both Mary and Joseph. So why is this obviously flawed genealogy even placed in the bible?

Sorry, but the parsimonious explanation is that this is yet another tortured attempt to hammer and paint Jesus into the Jewish Messiah by inventing genealogies. We might as well credit the 3rd genealogy from Chronicles. It conflicts further still from the first 2. Is it Marys, or Josephs??

It is no less facile than the NT references that pretend that the OT refers to Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus when the reference is clearly referring to a Tribe, not a Place. Or where it is said that Jesus must be the Messiah because he came from Nazareth - when the OT reference cited to 'prove' this speaks only of what a Nazarite is. Further, there is the easily proven falsehood that says Jesus must be the Messiah because.... the OT says 'he will be called Immanuel'. Only one problem - no where in the NT is Jesus called Immanuel.

Thus is the desperate nature of christians to morph Jesus to fit prophecy. Frankly the attempts are laughable, especially as christians try to tell jews what the OT 'really' says. It's patently offensive to jews, and piss-poor apologetics to boot.

Again, sell this snake oil elsewhere. Pauls self-interested attempt to change OT history by creating Jesus as a previously unheard of Savior/Redeemer while pretending he is proven from the original judaic Leader/Messiah simply does not fly. Jesus does not fulfill messianic prophesy, any more than you or I can be said to.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]

That line is where it effects how we should then live.

Which is a problem itself, being as 'how we should live' is as vague as vanilla UNLESS, of course, one subscribes to the christian god's said concept. Then it's clear, yes?

How should we live? Honestly? In contempt of others? Lying and cheating our fellow man?
You'd probably be able to find several 'how we should live's the more you travel around the planet and visit other countries.